Author
Topic: Which to rent? (Read 3776 times)

LiquidMelt

I'm visiting Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks for this upcoming mid-winter break, and thought about renting a lens for this upcoming trip from LensRentals, but can't really decide which lens to rent, and if I really should be renting a lens. Currently, I only own the kit lens for my 550D (and because I'm a High School student, too poor to buy any lenses, except maybe the 50mm), the lenses I was considering were the 24-70 f/2.8L, or the 24-105 f/4L, but am open to all suggestions. I plan on shooting mainly landscapes (for a stop motion project), maybe some wildlife (if there is any, and I happen to be lucky enough), and some stars.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

edit: I also have looked at the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, but the cost to rent was more than both of the L lenses. Also, as a side note, is the extra reach of the 24-105 worth the lost f/stop (for the scenario I described above)

edit 2: I recently recieved a REI gift card, and am looking into getting a camera bag, with the lack of gear I currently have, what would you suggest?

The 17-55 should be more expensive... on a crop body it's going to give you better photos (and the wide angle you need) than the 24-70 mkI. Keep in mind that 24 is not all that wide on a crop body...

If you're really looking to do landscape you might look at the 10-22. I currently have it rented from LensRentals and I'm really enjoying it (although I like my 17-55 more) and it's not overly expensive to rent (I got it for ~$100 for 10 days).

And as others mentioned a good tripod and an IR remote / Cable Release will probably do more for your landscape photography...

Sounds like you're on a tight budget so go for what you can afford and do something that complements the kit lens, not duplicates it.

Think about the EF-S 18-200. It's $47.25 for 10 days, cheaper than any other. It's probably equal to the kit lens in quality, but you can out to 200mm and that's a good thing to have in that country. It has a good IS (four-stop) to somewhat compensate for the 3.5/5.6. It's WIDE open and landscapes are endless out there in that country. National Geographic won't be beating down your door asking for the pictures, but they'll be generally good enough for anything you're doing at this point.

The 17-55 will give you the finest images you can get with that camera, but it's $75.50 and duplicates focal length given your kit lens. If it's financially a stretch, don't even think about it. I'd suggest the 24-105 ($55.25) is the second best option.

There may also be a camera club in your area, and if you get involved, someone might lend you something you can use -- just a thought.

I'd say skip the 24-xx and 17-55. For landscapes on a tripod, stopped down the f/7.1 or so, the 18-55 kit lens is quite good. Instead, if you want to rent, decide whether wildlife or stars are the priority. For wildlife, consider the 100-400, 300/4, or even 70-200/4 non-IS for budget reasons. Stars are harder - you want wide, but you also want fast if you want points of light (longer exposures and the earth's motion means star trails; the 24/1.4 is great for astrophotography). OTOH, if you want star trails, a narrower aperture is fine and you can use the kit lens for that.

The Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 8-16mm are also worth considering.

You'll definitely want a tripod+ballhead, and that should be your very first priority. The Benro Ultralight kit from lensrentals would be good.

Also, rent or buy a circular polarizer - that will really add to landscape shots, and the effect cannot be duplicated in post-processing.

Have enough memory cards, and shoot in RAW. If you need to buy more cards, for your camera they don't need to be fast.

As others said, first decide what you want to shoot -- wildlife or scenery. Second, if you are going to rent a lens, pick one that is different from what you've already got. Don't lock yourself into Canon lenses. You are renting, not buying, and your limited dollars may go further with a third-party lens.

Read Roger's Take on the various lenses -- he doesn't have the vested interest that people on this site do and he's got a lot more experience with a lot more lenses than anyone here.

If you want a telephoto zoom, consider the Tamron 70-300 IS, which rents cheap but is quite good quality. For super wide angle, just about any of the superwides are fine.

Pick something you think would be fun to try and go for it. You are young and you'll have plenty of other opportunities to travel in your life.

Tripod advice is good if you are going to be shooting in low light, but if not or if you are doing a lot of hiking, take that into consideration. Have fun. Focus on the pictures and not on the equipment. Even if you don't take any additional lenses you'll find plenty to shoot with what you've got.

canon rumors FORUM

I like your first idea, the 24-105. You want at least some telephoto if you're going to have one lens/one body.Another alternative is the 15-85 IS. It may not be a "pro" lens, but it gives you very good range from 24 to 135 35mm equivalent.

FYI, I rented the 24-105 and the 15-85, compared them and found very little difference in sharpness, contrast, etc. I bought the 15-85. However I carry two bodies, the 2nd has a 70-300 on it.